Membrane Optimization Page 1 of 8

Travis Lindsay
ChE 123- Fall 2018
10/05/18

Objective:
This lab was performed to monitor the flow rate of a membrane water purification
system as the pressure difference applied across the membrane was varied. Measuring the flow
rate of purified water for varying pressure differences then allowed for an experimental k factor
and constant diffusion flow factor (𝒸0 ) to be calculated through a linear regression of the data.
Lastly, an economic analysis was performed for the town of Blue Water to determine the
optimum specifications of the membrane and annual costs for the town to use the membrane
to meet their towns purified water needs.

Theory:
The production rate of purified water (ml/min) through the membrane was known to be
reliant on the pressure difference across the membrane ∆𝐏, membrane area A, the constant
diffusion flow factor 𝓬𝟎 , and the membrane specific k factor; represented in Equation 1.

𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝒸0 + kA∆P Equation 1

As the pressure difference applied across or area of the membrane increases the flow rate in
turn also increases. The increase in flow rate due to increased area of the membrane is because
a larger area results in a larger space being present for the medium to flow through. While the
increase in flow rate due to an increased pressure difference is because of the greater force
that higher pressures exert than lower pressures. This larger pressure force results in more
force being applied on adjacent molecules causing the medium to move forward, towards the
lower pressure area, where less force is applied on adjacent molecules.

Materials and Methods:

The materials needed for design of the apparatus depicted in Figure 1 included the
“blue dex” (which was a dyed water source in which the dye acted as the contaminant the
membrane filtered out), a centrifugal pump to pump the blue dex, a pressure gauge to measure
the pressure difference across the membrane, tubing to direct the blue dex, a 100 ml graduated
cylinder to measure the flow rate of the permeate, two small test tubes that allowed for the
flow rates of the permeate/reject to be equated, a stopwatch, a membrane, and a valve system
to adjust both the pressure difference across the membrane and flow rate of the reject. In this
lab, the blue dex was directed to the membrane where a pressure difference between the two
ends was being monitored with the ability to adjust the pressure difference as needed. As the
water flowed through the membrane for a known pressure difference the flow of the reject and
flow of the permeate were equated by adjusting the valve that controlled the flow rate of the
reject. These two flow rates were equated by allowing the reject and permeate to flow into two
identical test tubes. When the two test tubes appeared to require the same amount of time to
fill the two flow rates were deemed to be equal. Once the flow rates of the reject and permeate
were equated the permeate was used to fill the 100 ml graduated cylinder while being timed;
 Membrane Optimization Page 2 of 8

this allowed for the flow rate to be quantized in units of ml/min. This process was repeated for
8 different pressure differences ranging from 1 psi to 8 psi.
Apparatus Design:

Figure 1. The experimental apparatus consisted of a blue dyed water that was called the “blue dex”. A centrifugal pump
transported the blue dex to the membrane where the pressure difference was being monitored and could be adjusted with a
valve. As the blue dex exited the membrane the flow rate of the contaminated reject and purified permeate were equated. The
flow rate of the permeate was then measured by timing how long 100 milliliters of permeate took to accumulate.

Observations:
Flow rates for 8 different pressure differences were measured resulting in the values
presented in Table 1. As the pressure difference increased the corresponding flow rate of the
permeate also increased. The blue dex had a slight blue color that appeared to be completely
removed by the membrane; the reject appeared to contain all the contaminants while the
permeate appeared to be completely colorless.

Table 1. Measured flow rates of the permeate for the corresponding pressure difference applied across the membrane.

Measured Flow Rates of Different Pressure Differences:

Pressure Difference (PSI) Purified Water Flow Rate (ml/min)
1 192
2 273
3 349
4 394
5 461
 Membrane Optimization Page 3 of 8

6 507
7 554
8 603

Results and Discussion:

Calculations performed for this lab utilized Equation 1 to fit a linear model to the
relationship between the membranes measured flow rate and the pressure difference being
applied across the membrane. This allowed for an experimental k factor and experimental
constant diffusion flow factor (𝒸0 ) to be calculated. Using Equation 1 a linear model can be
fitted to the experimental data as a function of pressure difference whose slope is equal to the
membranes area multiplied by its k factor and y-intercept is equal to the constant diffusion flow
factor. Figure 2 displays a linear regression of the data measured in lab with the resulting linear
model being defined as “LF(Pressure)” in Figure 2 and displayed as the blue line in the graph in
Figure 2. Linear regression resulted in a y-intercept of 158.25 ml/min being calculated which
represented the experimental constant diffusion flow factor (𝒸0 ) and can be seen as the
variable defined as “inter” in Figure 2. A slope of 57.417 ml/(min*psi) was calculated which can
be seen in Figure 2 as the variable defined as “m1”. By dividing the slope by the membranes
area of 17,650 cm^2 an experimental k factor was obtained with a value of 0.003253
ml/(min*cm^2*psi) which can be seen as the variable defined as “k” in Figure 2. This
experimental k factor is much larger than the k factor reported by the manufacturer of 0.0007
ml/(min*cm^2*psi); indicating that the membrane is much more efficient than the
manufacturers are aware. However, due to the simplicity of the lab procedure it is unlikely that
experimental error played a large role in the discrepancy between the manufacturers reported
k factor and the experimentally determined k factor. The experimental data collected in lab
followed a consistent trend with no outliers skewing the distribution; resulting in an accurate
linear model being fitted to the experimental data. The data obtained in lab could readily be
reproduced by following the same procedure outlined in the materials and methods section;
providing support for the experimentally determined k factor and constant diffusion flow
factors validity.
Figure 3 displays the first step in the economic analysis of Blue Water’s membrane
water purification system in which membrane area was plotted as a function of pressure
difference so that the resulting flow rate would meet the town’s needs. The town requires a
membrane with a flow rate of 2500 L/day, defined as “Q” in Figure 3, which allowed for the
pressure difference and membrane area combinations that met this flow rate to be plotted.
Using the experimentally determined k factor and constant diffusion flow factor,
rearrangement of Equation 1 allowed for the area of the membrane to be solved for and
plotted as a function of pressure difference in which the function is defined as “Area(p)” in
Figure 3. The plot displayed in Figure 3 shows that the low pressures would require a large
membrane area to meet the towns required flow rate while the high pressures would require a
small membrane area to meet the towns required flow rate. Equation 1 provides justification
for why this trend between pressure difference and membrane area exists. Looking at Equation
1, taking into account the constant diffusion flow factor was calculated to have a value of
158.25 ml/min, a flow rate as large as the one the town requires can only be obtained if
 Membrane Optimization Page 4 of 8

whatever is being added to the constant diffusion flow factor is a large number. The only value
being added to the constant diffusion flow factor is the product of the pressure difference,
membrane area, and k factor. With the k factor being a known value of 0.003253
ml/(min*cm^2*psi) either a large pressure difference or large membrane area has to be
incorporated so that the value being added to the constant diffusion flow factor results in the
large flow rate the town requires.
Figure 4 displays the annual pump operating costs, annual membrane capital cost, and
total annual system cost as a function of pressure difference. The red curve represents the
annual pump operating costs as a function of pressure difference and is defined by the function
“APOC(p)” in Figure 4. The sharp upwards curve represents the exponentially increasing
annual cost that will come from increasing the pressure difference applied across the
membrane. This increasing cost is due to the larger amounts of energy and work that are
required to apply a larger pressure difference. The blue curve represents the annual membrane
capital cost as a function of pressure difference and is defined by the function “AMCC(p)” in
Figure 4. The sharp downward curve represents the decreasing cost of the membrane as
pressure difference increases. This is due to the smaller membrane that will be required to
meet the towns flow rate as long as the pressure difference is large enough; if the pressure
difference is low then the membrane in turn will have to be larger to meet the towns required
flow rate. Since membrane cost is a function of membrane size and larger pressure differences
requires a smaller membrane to meet the town’s needs; as pressure difference increases the
membrane cost decreases. The black curve represents the total annual system cost as a
function of pressure difference and is defined by the function “TASC(p)” in Figure 4. The
overarching curve is due to the total annual system cost being a sum of the annual pump
operating costs and annual membrane costs. By minimizing the total annual system cost an
optimum operating pressure difference was calculated with a value of 17.631 psi, defined as
“minn” in Figure 4. This optimum pressure can then be used to calculate a required membrane
area and annual system costs by using the functions already defined for these variables in terms
of pressure difference; all the following optimized values can be seen in Table 2. Using the
function defined as “Area(p)” in Figure 3 and the optimum pressure difference as the input a
membrane area of 2.751 m^2 was calculated. Using the function defined as “APOC(p)” in
Figure 4 and the optimum pressure difference as the input an annual pump operating cost of
$486.077 was calculated. Using the function defined as “AMCC(p)” in Figure 4 and the
optimum pressure difference as the input an annual membrane capital cost of $1458 was
calculated. Using the function defined as “TASC(p)” in Figure 4 and the optimum pressure
difference as the input a total annual system cost of $1944 was calculated.
 Membrane Optimization Page 5 of 8

Linear Model:

Figure 2. Linear regression of the data points obtained in lab. The blue line represents the linear regression while each data point is represented by a
red dot. The linear model fits the data points very well due to the trend that the data followed. The slope of the linear model is defined as “m1”
while the y-intercept of the linear model is defined as “inter”. By dividing the slope by the membranes area an experimental k constant was
calculated with a value of 0.003253 ml/(min*cm^2*psi). The intercept of the trendline with a value of 158.25 mL/min is the experimental constant
diffusion flow factor.
 Membrane Optimization Page 6 of 8

Blue Water’s Membrane Area vs Pressure:

Figure 3. Membrane area graphed as a function of pressure difference. Based on the towns required flow rate, experimentally
determined k factor, and experimentally determined constant diffusion flow factor.
 Membrane Optimization Page 7 of 8

Blue Water Economic Analysis:

Figure 4. Annual pump operating cost (APOC)(red), annual membrane capital cost (AMCC)(blue), and total annual system cost
(TASC)(black) plotted as functions of pressure difference. Total annual system cost was minimized to obtain an optimum
operating pressure difference. This optimum pressure difference was then used to calculate a membrane area, annual pump
operating cost, annual membrane capital cost, and total annual system cost for the town.
 Membrane Optimization Page 8 of 8

Table 2. Optimized values for pressure difference, membrane area, annual pump operating costs, annual membrane capital
cost, and total annual system cost. Optimum pressure difference was found using minimization of the total annual system cost.
All other values were found using the functions listed and plugging in the optimum pressure difference as the input.

Optimized Values:
Variable Value Function Used to
Calculate:
Pressure Difference 17.631 psi Minimization of TASC(p)
Membrane Area 2.751 m^2 Area(p)
Annual Pump Operating Costs $486.077 APOC(p)
Annual Membrane Capital Cost $1458 AMCC(p)
Total Annual System Cost $1944 TASC(p)

Conclusion:
Flow rates were obtained for 8 different pressure differences throughout lab, ranging
from 1 psi to 8 psi in increments of 1 psi. A linear regression performed on the experimental
data resulted in a linear model being fitted to the data with a y-intercept value of 158.25
ml/min (corresponding to 𝒸0 in Equation 1) being calculated and a slope with a value of 57.417
ml/(min*psi) being calculated. By dividing the slope by the membranes area a k factor for the
membrane was calculated with a value of 0.003253 ml/(min*cm^2*psi). Economic analysis for
the town of Blue Water’s membrane water purification system was performed by plotting
annual pump costs, annual membrane capital, and total annual system costs as functions of the
pressure difference being applied across the membrane. Minimization of the total annual
system costs so that the town could purify its water the most economical way resulted in an
optimum pressure difference of 17.631 psi being calculated. This optimum pressure difference
corresponded to a membrane area of 2.751 m^2 in order to meet the towns required flow rate.
Using this pressure difference and membrane area an annual pump operating cost of $486.077,
annual membrane capital cost of $1458, and total annual system cost of $1944 were calculated.